Gearing question: sprocket/chainring/cog size?
#1
Senior Member
Thread Starter
Join Date: Dec 2005
Location: Cape Vincent, NY
Posts: 1,390
Bikes: Specialized Tarmac Expert, 2002 TREK 520, Schwinn Mesa WINTER BIKE, Huffy Rock Creek 29er, 1970s-era Ross ten speed. All my bikes are highly modified(except the Tarmac) yet functional, and generally look beat to ****. .
Mentioned: 1 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 68 Post(s)
Liked 88 Times
in
51 Posts
Gearing question: sprocket/chainring/cog size?
I don't understand why bicycles have big front chainrings and smaller cogs in the rear.(typically)
It seems to me that if you are in a gear in which you're in a 39 front chainring and a 20 rear cog, then it should be essentially the same gear as being in a 42 front chainring and a 23 rear cog, is that not correct? If you look at an old singlespeed bike, or a fixie, the front ring is always significantly larger than the rear cog. When you consider chain wrap and how chains and sprockets/gears wear out when they are put under stresses associated with not having many teeth engaged when under power, doesn't it seem like it would make more sense to have the same sized sprockets on front and back to more evenly space out the load?
Even with cassettes and derailleur bikes it seems like the front chainrings are generally larger than most or all of the cassette cogs.
Motorcycles are opposite and typically have a smaller front drive sprocket and a larger rear wheel pulley, so I can't figure that out either.
I'm sure there's a simple explaination for this, can someone point me in the right direction?
It seems to me that if you are in a gear in which you're in a 39 front chainring and a 20 rear cog, then it should be essentially the same gear as being in a 42 front chainring and a 23 rear cog, is that not correct? If you look at an old singlespeed bike, or a fixie, the front ring is always significantly larger than the rear cog. When you consider chain wrap and how chains and sprockets/gears wear out when they are put under stresses associated with not having many teeth engaged when under power, doesn't it seem like it would make more sense to have the same sized sprockets on front and back to more evenly space out the load?
Even with cassettes and derailleur bikes it seems like the front chainrings are generally larger than most or all of the cassette cogs.
Motorcycles are opposite and typically have a smaller front drive sprocket and a larger rear wheel pulley, so I can't figure that out either.
I'm sure there's a simple explaination for this, can someone point me in the right direction?
Last edited by Thulsadoom; 01-10-12 at 07:38 AM.
#2
Plays in traffic
Join Date: May 2006
Location: Rochester, NY
Posts: 6,971
Bikes: 1996 Litespeed Classic, 2006 Trek Portland, 2013 Ribble Winter/Audax, 2016 Giant Talon 4
Mentioned: 21 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 76 Post(s)
Likes: 0
Liked 14 Times
in
9 Posts
Sheldon Brown's Gear Calculator
Bicycles have a long-stroke, low-RPM, high-torque, narrow-band, low-horsepower motor.
Motorcycles have a short-stroke, high-RPM, high-torque, wide-band, high-horsepower motor.
This gives the transmissions differing requirements.
Bicycles have a long-stroke, low-RPM, high-torque, narrow-band, low-horsepower motor.
Motorcycles have a short-stroke, high-RPM, high-torque, wide-band, high-horsepower motor.
This gives the transmissions differing requirements.
#3
Starting over
Join Date: Jun 2005
Location: Indianapolis
Posts: 4,077
Bikes: 1990 Trek 1500; 2006 Gary Fisher Marlin; 2011 Cannondale Synapse Alloy 105; 2012 Catrike Trail
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 10 Post(s)
Likes: 0
Liked 3 Times
in
3 Posts
Could be too, that early derailleurs worked better when they had compact bodies and cages, handling changes between relatively small cogs that were only incrementally different in size from their neighbors.
Just a guess.
Just a guess.
#5
Senior Member
If you're asking why front chainrings are 39T instead of 44T, the answer is "marketing." If you're asking why they aren't 13T, then you need more help than you're gonna get here.
#6
Full Member
If you build some sort of unorthodox bike, like a bike with unusually large wheels (like 2x the diameter of normal wheels), then the balance will shift sufficiently to call for a larger cog.
Although I'm not sure what point you are trying to make with these examples. In both of your examples the chainring is still almost 2 times larger than the cog.
When you consider chain wrap and how chains and sprockets/gears wear out when they are put under stresses associated with not having many teeth engaged when under power, doesn't it seem like it would make more sense to have the same sized sprockets on front and back to more evenly space out the load?
Again, if you build some unusual bike with wheels that are 2 times larger in diameter than "normal" wheels, then the optimal ratio between chainring and cog diameter might get them very close to each other. If you build a bike with wheels that are 3 times larger in diameter than "normal" wheels, you might end up needing a cog that is larger than the chainring.
A bicycle uses an "engine" of a completely different nature. A human being as an engine works more efficiently at relatively low RPMs, while producing relatively high torque. This means that bike's transmission system has to be tailored towards converting torque into speed. For this reason for bicycle the optimal torque-speed balance calls for larger chainring and smaller cog.
Well, are you familiar with the concepts of "gearbox", "gearing"? That's the primary thing about the chain drive. The purpose of the bicycle chain drive is not even remotely limited to simply transferring the torque from the crankset to the rear wheel. The purpose of the bicycle chain drive is to change the balance between the torque and speed to provide the most efficient/comfortable ride (torque vs. speed balance) for the given riding conditions.
Last edited by AndreyT; 01-10-12 at 03:19 PM.
#7
Banned
Or more simply its like moving the fulcrum under a lever..
Think of a teeter-totter is a 1:1 gear.
Catapult flings stuff far because the leverage advantage is there.
Think of a teeter-totter is a 1:1 gear.
Catapult flings stuff far because the leverage advantage is there.
#8
Senior Member
Join Date: Apr 2010
Location: Warwick, UK
Posts: 1,049
Bikes: 2000-something 3 speed commuter, 1990-something Raleigh Scorpion
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Likes: 0
Liked 1 Time
in
1 Post
If you look at an old singlespeed bike, or a fixie, the front ring is always significantly larger than the rear cog. When you consider chain wrap and how chains and sprockets/gears wear out when they are put under stresses associated with not having many teeth engaged when under power, doesn't it seem like it would make more sense to have the same sized sprockets on front and back to more evenly space out the load?
Motorcycle engines are capable of high revs but low torque, the exact opposite of a human cranking pedals. The low gear ratios of a motorcycle convert a high speed, low torque output to a low speed, high torque one.
#9
Senior Member
Thread Starter
Join Date: Dec 2005
Location: Cape Vincent, NY
Posts: 1,390
Bikes: Specialized Tarmac Expert, 2002 TREK 520, Schwinn Mesa WINTER BIKE, Huffy Rock Creek 29er, 1970s-era Ross ten speed. All my bikes are highly modified(except the Tarmac) yet functional, and generally look beat to ****. .
Mentioned: 1 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 68 Post(s)
Liked 88 Times
in
51 Posts
After reading through this stuff, I realize now that it was kind of a dumb post. Maybe I shouldn't post in the morning when I'm on coffee....
If you wanted to equal out the cogs, say a 30 in the front and a 30 in the back, it would be a tiny gear. Unless, like AndreyT said, you had a huge rear wheel, or you could pedal at 200 rpms with no problem. A 20 in the front and 20 in the back would be tiny, a 50 and a 50 also. Somehow I confused myself and didn't realize that bicycles are geared (given wheels that are 27 inches or so in diameter) for humans who pedal at around 80 rpms comfortably and have a relatively similar power band. That's the way I see it now, and it makes sense...to me at least.
Thanks for the replies.
If you wanted to equal out the cogs, say a 30 in the front and a 30 in the back, it would be a tiny gear. Unless, like AndreyT said, you had a huge rear wheel, or you could pedal at 200 rpms with no problem. A 20 in the front and 20 in the back would be tiny, a 50 and a 50 also. Somehow I confused myself and didn't realize that bicycles are geared (given wheels that are 27 inches or so in diameter) for humans who pedal at around 80 rpms comfortably and have a relatively similar power band. That's the way I see it now, and it makes sense...to me at least.
Thanks for the replies.
#10
Banned
A 1:1 chain drive is how those 6 foot tall Unicycles work.
and artistic cycling bikes to do wheelies and handstands on the bike
at the same time.
and artistic cycling bikes to do wheelies and handstands on the bike
at the same time.
Thread
Thread Starter
Forum
Replies
Last Post
Sincitycycler
Singlespeed & Fixed Gear
56
06-05-14 10:44 PM